Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Texzilla58 said:

How you ask?  Because the former AD was a complete moron at hiring and firing.  Think you might want to call the attorney before to review it.

LSU now claiming Kelly never actually worked there.  

"Brian who? We have never heard of this Brian Kelly person coaching our football program at Louisiana State University." 

Posted
14 hours ago, 'stache said:

"Kelly’s contract contains a “Duty to Mitigate” clause. This clause explicitly requires Kelly to “exercise due diligence and good faith in seeking qualifying employment so long as the liquidated damage obligation exists.” Or, in simple terms, Kelly has to look for another job, and any money that he gets paid from that job would then be used to reduce LSU’s payment."

https://huddleup.substack.com/p/inside-brian-kellys-54-million-lsu

Thus, he can't sit on his ass and demand full payment. And he can't just go to the local juco and take minimum wage as an "analyst" and collect the balance from LSU. He has to exercise "due diligence and good faith" and therefore he has to actually try to find a good high paying job. If he claims that he tried and struck or could only get a low paying job he needs proof. The fact is that someone would hire him as a HC and pay him well this cycle. He can either let that process play out and if he gets paid less than the buyout collect the balance from LSU, or if he does not want to pursue new employment at this time, take a settlement. The clause is designed to incentivize both sides to settle for a reasonable amount.

I'm not sure why everyone is so caught up on the mitigation aspect at this point. He's been fired less than a month, and it's not college football hiring season. Additionally, him seeking a job can be him taking a gig at ESPN for a year or two at a few hundred K, he can't be legally forced to work only in coaching by a contract. 

LSU wanted a lower settlement to make him go away, BK told them to fuck right off, then the clownshow started. Even if they reach a settlement, the news will report the number, but probably not the payout structure. This started with the two parties arguing over the total payout. Then the state of Louisiana decided they were going to try and pay zero. And here we are. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm not sure why everyone is so caught up on the mitigation aspect at this point. He's been fired less than a month, and it's not college football hiring season. Additionally, him seeking a job can be him taking a gig at ESPN for a year or two at a few hundred K, he can't be legally forced to work only in coaching by a contract. 

People forget ESPN and Fox are more than willing to serve as welfare for fired coaches so they can get their buyouts. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

People forget ESPN and Fox are more than willing to serve as welfare for fired coaches so they can get their buyouts. 

He seems like an impersonable asshole.  So I guess one of those networks will hire him.

  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Js1 said:

People forget ESPN and Fox are more than willing to serve as welfare for fired coaches so they can get their buyouts. 

That's why God created kickbacks. 

33 minutes ago, Texzilla58 said:

How you ask?  Because the former AD was a complete moron at hiring and firing.  Think you might want to call the attorney before to review it.

LSU now claiming Kelly never actually worked there.  

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's pretty much contract law.  There's variations here and there, state by state, but duty to mitigate damages is pretty standard.  The most general statement:

Second Restatement of Contracts §350: Avoidability (1) Except as stated in Subsection (2), damages are not recoverable for loss that the injured party could have avoided without undue risk, burden or humiliation. (2) The injured party is not precluded from recovery by the rule stated in Subsection (1) to the extent that he has made reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to avoid loss.

The best part is by now backtracking and saying it is a for cause termination, LSU has made it feasible for Kelly to argue that he was unable to find a similar job because of the damage they did to his reputation with this clearly false claim in the future. 

Of course I doubt he could successfully recover any damages in a defamation lawsuit beyond the buyout amount that they would therefore owe him. But that would be funny. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
50 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

The guy was born to spar with Dave Portnoy on Big Noon Kickoff. 

Jesus Christ, I think i'd just throw my TV out the window and become Amish than watch that.

  • Drool 1
Posted
56 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm not sure why everyone is so caught up on the mitigation aspect at this point. He's been fired less than a month, and it's not college football hiring season. Additionally, him seeking a job can be him taking a gig at ESPN for a year or two at a few hundred K, he can't be legally forced to work only in coaching by a contract. 

LSU wanted a lower settlement to make him go away, BK told them to fuck right off, then the clownshow started. Even if they reach a settlement, the news will report the number, but probably not the payout structure. This started with the two parties arguing over the total payout. Then the state of Louisiana decided they were going to try and pay zero. And here we are. 

He can do that but LSU can legitimately sue and argue that 200k at ESPN is far less than he’d get if he pursued a coaching job diligently and in good faith. He can’t be forced into any particular job but he has to consider the possible reduction of the buyout if he takes a “break” at a significantly lower salary. Schools might not bother to pursue the claim especially if they think it’s temporary and that he’ll go back to coaching for a high salary within a year or two and also to avoid pr issues but it would be a legitimate claim under the contract. I’m not aware of any situation in which a buyout was paid over several years with legitimate mitigation calculations, they always settle, because that’s what the clauses are designed to accomplish. The for cause stuff is ridiculous though and makes them look really bad. It also appears to be diminishing the possibility of a settlement. I doubt it will affect the hiring process though, they’ll throw a ton of money at someone who will take it expecting to win and not have to worry about buyouts.

Posted
1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Jesus Christ, I think i'd just throw my TV out the window and become Amish than watch that.

I tried big noon the other day in the wake of the YTTV bullshit. I lasted maybe 2-3 min as is. 

Posted
1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm not sure why everyone is so caught up on the mitigation aspect at this point. He's been fired less than a month, and it's not college football hiring season. Additionally, him seeking a job can be him taking a gig at ESPN for a year or two at a few hundred K, he can't be legally forced to work only in coaching by a contract. 

LSU wanted a lower settlement to make him go away, BK told them to fuck right off, then the clownshow started. Even if they reach a settlement, the news will report the number, but probably not the payout structure. This started with the two parties arguing over the total payout. Then the state of Louisiana decided they were going to try and pay zero. And here we are. 

Other than that, how is it going?

Posted

 

36 minutes ago, 'stache said:

He can do that but LSU can legitimately sue and argue that 200k at ESPN is far less than he’d get if he pursued a coaching job diligently and in good faith. He can’t be forced into any particular job but he has to consider the possible reduction of the buyout if he takes a “break” at a significantly lower salary. Schools might not bother to pursue the claim especially if they think it’s temporary and that he’ll go back to coaching for a high salary within a year or two and also to avoid pr issues but it would be a legitimate claim under the contract. I’m not aware of any situation in which a buyout was paid over several years with legitimate mitigation calculations, they always settle, because that’s what the clauses are designed to accomplish. The for cause stuff is ridiculous though and makes them look really bad. It also appears to be diminishing the possibility of a settlement. I doubt it will affect the hiring process though, they’ll throw a ton of money at someone who will take it expecting to win and not have to worry about buyouts.

No they can't. No one has ever sued, much less successfully sued, a coach for not going back into coaching in regards to their offset language. 

"Yeah, the stress of the LSU job, the smearing of my good name by LSU, and the legal battle were a lot. My doctor told me I should take a year out of coaching because of the stress I've been enduring."

It's not happening. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...